Edited to add Chinese translation
@JackyLHH I wasn’t sure how to label this topic, please feel free to change if needed.
What I would like to bring up for a general discussion (not a proposal) may not be a problem at this current time, but I believe that it is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
If it isn’t dealt with now, then there is a real possibility that a time will come that it is impossible to fix in a decentralised way using the governance system.
While I’m not sure of the accuracy of this number, I have seen mentioned multiple times that Binance ‘owns’ around 10 Billion CKB, which is around ¼ of the current CKB supply.
While Binance would hold a certain number of CKB as liquidity for buying and selling on their exchanges, they would also be holding a large number in custody for customers who choose to leave their CKB on the exchange.
The possible issue is that in the future, Binance may offer CKB Staking to it’s customers. This means Binance would stake the CKB in the Nervos DAO on the customers behalf and pay a certain amount of the DAO compensation they collect to the customer. This in itself is not a real problem.
The problem would be that Binance (or any other exchange) would have the ability to use these staked CKB to take part in governance voting.
This would obviously be catastrophic to the DAO and destroy the whole point of having a community DAO in the first place.
The reason I believe this needs to be addressed now is for the simple fact that if Binance stakes their CKB holdings in the DAO tomorrow, then they could use their voting power to veto any attempts from that point on to prevent them from taking part in the governance system.
While I doubt Binance has any interest in getting involved in the community DAO at this point in time, things may be different in the future if/when Nervos is fully governed by the DAO and the direction of the whole network is decided on through this type of governance system.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to prevent certain addresses from taking part in the voting or how these addresses could even be linked to certain exchanges, so maybe this can’t be done at a system level.
And even if there was a way to manually blacklist addresses, it would open up the possibility that this ability could be abused, so maybe this method wouldn’t be suitable anyway.
My idea is that there could be an acknowledgement that has to be ticked by everyone before submitting any vote, declaring that they are not an exchange/custodian or taking part in any sort of proxy voting. They must be the true owner of the CKB.
While this would not be enforceable or meaningful in any legal way, it would at the very least be a public moral issue and create bad press for the exchange if they were found to be clearly going against the community’s wishes. This alone would hopefully be enough to prevent this from happening.
I’m not even sure what is possible to implement using the Metaforo system, so maybe even something like this isn’t able to be done at this stage.
But if it does turn out to be a case where nothing can actually be implemented, I still believe we could go forward with some sort of vote. This would just lay down the community’s stance on this matter so that it is fully clear that it either is, or is not something we want to happen.
Anyway, this is just my opinion, if anyone has any other ideas or thoughts on this matter, please put them forward here.
虽然我不确定这个数字的准确性，但我看到多次提到Binance "拥有 "大约100亿CKB，这大约是目前CKB供应量的1/4。